On Defining and Differentiating
… 5
this illustrates the fact that the educator inevitably carries an ideological framework just like
other social actors (Rahnema, 1992, p. 124). Some commentators take this reasoning a step
further and argue that Freirean practices can be viewed as a continuation of Western domination
(Aronowitz, 1993, p. 8; Bowers, 1983, p. 950).
In addition, the theory is not generalizable to all development communication contexts.
Social change efforts are not in all respects like teaching situations. They are not all
interpersonal, but may be large scale. They are not always oriented towards individual
emancipatory transformation, but may be oriented towards immediate needs (Berthoff, 1990, p.
367). Similarly, one can question the adequacy of his model of dialog itself. Not that what it
portrays is wrong, but there are other kinds of dialog. It may be useful to label as being
dialogical processes that do not require deep bonds of trust (Pietrykowski, 1996, p. 84).
Freire’s work might not suffice for a general theory of participatory communication for
social change on its own, but it does represent a compelling account of at least some key
processes of participatory communication. The theory’s treatment of the dialogical requirements
for democracy may be limited, but insofar as they apply they are exemplary. These are some of
the reasons his work invigorated critique of top-down communication models during the 1960s
and 1970s, and why his work continues to be widely read today.
Current Approaches to Participatory Communication
If Freire’s work has inspired the participatory communication movement in ways that are
both broad and deep, implementations of participatory communication vary considerably. Some
are interpersonal. Some are mediated. Most projects are community centered and try in one way
or another to include local residents in planning and/or, implementation. However, some can be
Convention